table-top / commercial / architecture Clarinet

I really like this kind of work.You have just given me alot of inspiration to try this kind of thing on my own instrumnets,but in Black and White.

 

The shot is spot on.

If you're under the impression that I'm challenging the way many

Pnetters 'evaluate' images here, my answer is a resounding

'YES'. Of course 'Wow' is equally useless. There have been

endless discussions about how aesthetics and originality are

interpretted in a naive way. Bottom line is if it doesn't inspire you,

leave it alone because that's a reflection of how you see the

world, not the photographer's failings. If nobody sees anything of

value, then perhaps we can point out why and trash it, but if you

read Michael's post and several previous ones, you'll have to

agree that's not the case here.

 

I find that more and more of my critiques are along the lines of

what Michael just said. It inspires me to go out and take a similar

shot and maybe I'd approach it 'this' way instead of 'that'. Will it

be better? Who knows. Take the specific ideas offered . . . or not.

. . . your choice.

Matt Kime asked: Should we change our criteria to judge an image because a picture was taken as an assignment ?

I'd like to answer that. The answer is: it's up to you. :-) You may want to stick to your usual criteria, which may cause you to say "It doesn't grab me" and to go to the next photo. Or you may want to look at a picture for what it is, and how well it was executed and to find out whether it fits ITS given purpose.

If you have decided that a good picture (in general) is a picture that should be this and that, then you may simply miss in any picture that doesn't fit your mould what you may have learned from what you were looking at.

"It doesn't GRAB me", said someone... Well, what do you mean by "grab" ? It doesn't move you to tears ? Well, great, because if this picture made you cry, I'd feel sorry for you and I'd cry as well. :-) This is not one of these images meant to move you, or at most it is meant to move you aesthetically. Unfortunately, the image is unlikely to move crowds at an aesthetical level either, simply because it is cold: a single (straight) main line, blue, black, white, and that's it.

Now what is it "worth" ? Duh... That funny question again. Well, it's worth exactly what the client paid for it. First let's see whether it's "well done" or not. I'd say that the lighting is nothing particularly difficult, but it is tasteful and perfectly adjusted. Composition... That's a bit more of an issue for me. We are only looking at a detail of the music instrument, and the clarinette is cropped on both sides - which is perfectly understandable, but at the same time leaves us with very little to see in terms of QUANTITY. It so happens that the photographer also decided (or was asked to ?) leave the main subject at the edge of the image, and that there is a large quantity of this (to me fairly aggressive) background. A question on my mind is: WHY so much background ? Why not less, and also why not more ? If the format is meant to suit a publication size, then, it is what it is, but here are two considerations on my mind: 1) Could the photographer have shown more of the instrument with a narrower portion of background - i.e a panoramic format ? 2) If we stick to the crop left and right as we see it here, having less background seems to make sense, but having more background - a square format - would be an interesting possibility as well: a more extreme and therefore more impactful choice imo.

As with many assignment photographs, it is difficult to reacha final conclusion without knowing what were the parameters involved. And all we can say now about the composition may be in vain, since the composition might simply fulfill a designer's requirements.

So what are we here to judge at all ? The light ? It is great. The color of the background ? Well, I'd have chosen something less flashy. Perhaps even a black background - black on black has more class to me than this blue, but that's just my taste. Let's not forget also that the background could perhaps have been lit differently, that there could be a toning in it, etc. I'd probably like a different background better.

Now is this picture novel in any way ? No. There have been numerous similar images made available in stock libraries and as posters.

Conclusion: to me, it's a very well executed image (except for the fact that the clarinette has a minor tilt) with a clear intent but which we can't really understand without knowing exactly what the assignment was all about. Is thisa good choice for POW ? Yes, but imo, for a reason that many may not expect: simply because it is a commercial assignment and because it can enlighten the general public about how assignment photography works, which are the constraints etc. Without knowing exactly the parameters involved, I'd say that it's difficult to form an opinion. Hope the photographer will drop a few lines of explanation regarding the background color and the composition, based on the design requirements. It's a good to very good picture imo, but I feel the photographer himself has better images in his folders, absolutely speaking, and I also feel that there are quite a few more spectacular or more subtle still life images on photo.net. It's well done, for sure, but there are more interesting images to discuss in this category. What's interesting to me about this one is precisely that it is an assignment and I'd like to understand the photographer's decision based on the brief. Best regards.

Marc,Thanks for your comments and you questions. The assignment was to pull abstactions and graphic elements out of musical instruments for use in symphony publications. This particular shot was submitted to them with three different backgrounds. (Black, graduated grey, and the blue that you see here.) They ended up using this blue background several times and the black background once. Incidentally, this image was used in both the vertical position and the horizontal position. They liked the splash of color that this version introduced into their ordinarily "black tie" type of publications. They did specify that they needed significant areas of negative space to add copy (showed me a few rough thumbnails approximating how much space was needed)...they however did not specify that this particular image had to have that much negative space. That was my decision. ...and,... this image had more negative space than any of the others that were submitted as part of this assignment. (As an aside...because of the vast negative space in this image it was used much more than any other image in their publications during that season.... Designers love to have room for copy and graphics )

Yes, there were parameters that I was expected to work within. This assignment however gave me much freedom to photograph the instruments that I thought would produce strong graphic abstractions, in a manner that would be suitable for representing the symphony.

To answer John Crowe's question - no Photoshop has been used on this image. It is a straight scan from the original film.

Thanks to all who have added to this discussion.

Well, thanks for the details. A pretty clear example of the exact difference between personal work and assignment photography. In fact, the light was the key element for this image, the one thing that you were really in charge of and the creative bit you added to the brief, and the light is great. You provided options for the background, as required, and the options made sense. You selected this particular portion of the clarinette, and that's another decision you made which works. So, overall, it might be a failed photo for some, but to me it's a very well carried out assignment, not really much more and most certainly nothing less. It's an image that is meant to receive a body copy, to act as a kind of "frame" for it. As such, well done - and all the best for the next ones.

Moderator comment: Hello - Can some of you stop critiques of other posters or other poster's opinions? Please stick to the image. I'm leaving it alone for now but will go in and delete or edit comments that are turning into a semi-un-civil dialog with each other rather than dealing with this week's POW if it gets out of hand. For those of you that don't know about the guidelines for posting on this forum....check out the "ABOUT" link on the main page of photo.net above the thumbnail of the POW.

I don't intend the following as a critique of other posters at least not personally, but I think that some interaction with the expressed opinions of others here is germain to any aesthetic discussion. Afterall this IS a discussion is it not?

Ok the photographer had an assignment to do this very clean, open, shot, or a number of them, to which somekind of ad copy will be added. And he succeeded in fulfilling that assignment, and, I assume, the customer was happy and paid him. That's good. Where do we go from there if we're discussing photographs as stand alone images? What I don't understand is how any commercial agenda negates the emotional, aesthetic reactions of some the paricipants here at photo.net who don't like the way it looks, don't like the composition, don't like the, IMO, sterile feeling of it, and may or may not be able to compensate for the lack thereof by appreciating the choice of lighting. Why is the professional agenda more of an excuse for an extremely banal image, than any personal artistic agenda? If one set out to create this picture as a personal expression how/why should reactions differ? We're all on assignments, if simply our own. I'm not attacking anyone who likes this image, but defending the right to disagree without being accused of having some ignorant "consumer" mentality, or whatever. The elves put this photo up for POW. That's what I'm looking at, and because I'm interested in what a photo can convey and not how it will function within some marketing ad campaign or brochure, I don't care about this photo and frankly question its choice for POW. It's like if some incredibly offensive personal shot is chosen, and people call it that, but the photographer says "I wanted it that way", so then everyone goes yeah he wanted it that way so it's a success, and it must be good..plus perhaps he got paid, so that proves it. So alright this is a great example of commercial brochure photography that fulfilled the customer's criteria. Well done.

Moderator response: Yes, interaction with the expressed opinions of others here is germain to any aesthetic discussion. Yes this IS a discussion. Agree with you Dean -- However - A "Discussion" is when people respectfully disagree or agree and note someone else's comment and respond to it - backing it up with thier own "opinion". We are only discouraging long and uncivil dialog on this page re: The choice of POW or how others rated or attacking someone else's different "opinion".etc.. We all know how these things can escalate if left unchecked. While it may be fun and stimulating - it deteriorates quickly into name calling and my job is to nip it in the bud. Anyone wishing to discuss policy or ratings may start a thread in the appropriate forum if they wish. It just does not belong here and those comments will be edited according to the POW guidelines.

Confusing... But Looks fine

-Venkat

I used the phrase "commercial" in my earlier post. I know where of I speak having spent 30 years in the biz shooting for Kodak, Xerox, RayBan, Heinz, Corning, etc.

Would I use different criteria for commenting/rating on an assignment image? Sure, because most commercial/assignment images are created for a third party and are subject to their wims, ideas and needs. More to the point, such images are created for a single purpose - to sell something, hardly the motivational criteria for creating images that stand the test of time (my apologies to Penn, Avedon and a small number of other practitioners who have been able to transcend commercial limitations).

Commercial images may stir the senses, but rarely the soul. The best photography reaches inside and touches precious places and is capable of influencing the way we see, feel and think.

I must I reserve my 7s and/or highest praise for images that delight my eye, challenge my perceptions and touch my soul.Clarinet, as a stand alone image minus its rationale, rates a 4/4.

This is kind of like the old, stirring days of conversation about the POW. Great fun. First of all, I really like the image. I like the contrast of the colors. I like the demarcation of light between the instrument and background. I even like the explanation, or I wouldn't know what it was. I could never do as well, so I probably am not qualified to say I like it. But I guess I would be less qualified to say I dislike it, because I wouldn't know why. But as to basis of critique, let's think for a minute. When (or if) you rate a photo, one of two things we rate on is "aesthetics" (unless they've changed that since I rated photos). Now is there any more subjective criteria on which to rate something than that? What I find pleasing to the eye, someone else thinks is boring. Well, that's OK, they can be wrong if they want. I don't have any way to prove it. I've had people give my photos a rating of 1 (probably deserved), but when asked the reason, they responded "I didn't like the subject." Well, that's hard to take, has nothing to do with photographic technique or presentation, but it IS their opinion. And my mother always told me that opinions are things that are not given up easily. So on with the games - and with abstract still life. Cheers to all opinions.

Best,

Barry

First off, if I end up repeating something that's already been said, I apologize --- I tried to read everything, but I couldn't get through it.

 

I feel I need to address the intended function of this picture: you said you were using it for promotional items, etc. This is fine, but I have to ask: who would your intended audience be? Many people responded with confusion as to what the picture actually depicted, which could impair the function of your image. Musicians, and those involved with music (basically, anyone who sees clarinets on a regular basis) won't have much trouble identifying this image, but the general public would have a lot more trouble...

 

Just a thought!

Not appealing, but yet not my taste. Execution, i would rate 5. Content & Composition, I would rate 3 or maybe 2. This work has absolutly no meaning to me, but i do understand the purchaser of such photo would think otherwise. We all have a right to agree/disagee as to the quality of such photo; i don't think this shot would hang on too may walls as a display or many within many brochures for that matter....so i think it is a very isolated taste for an isolated purpose. That's just my opinion.

This works on an abstract level that transcends both the subject and the

commercial motivation.

How many photographs can you see from your chair at the computer? Are

any of them worth talking about on Pnet? (why not?!) If we discuss

them, how would we benefit by looking at the image out of context?

 

(From here, I see photos on a newspaper, book cover, web page

printout, board game box, high school portrait, and one of mine

framed)

I like this picture. Did I know what it was? No. But that it is fluid, sleek and even sexy, I do see. Sometimes it's best not to know. And I like the placement. It's like a landscape of a sort. We should be using our imagination and maybe allowing ourselves to expand ever so slightly beyond our own blinders (usually self-imposed). Isn't this what art should be? An individual's expression of his own perceptions?

The photographer did like it [the image], and wants to know not that he should not have taken the shot, but rather how could he have improved it.

I have a friend who likes to photograph graves. Lots and lots of them. I don't care for graves, but I have to admit that her work shows creativity and that she always has composition dead on. Her photos are great, even if the subject matter is not to my taste.

Mr. Schrader, great shot!

Some would look at this photo and see that it has great lighting, sexy lines, good composition, excellent exposure and suggest deeper thought and a better approach is required to acheive a proper respect for the displayed item. I tend to agree with the later in this case and would also say that photo's are arbitray and should all be commended for the excellent characteristics in which the content entails. In this isolated case, the only ratings that should take place for this photo are the ones placed by the customer themselves because they were the directors of such photo. All other viewponts would be invalid to the cause. Now, saying this, if asked to comment on such photo without any explanations of intention i would say the following:

 

If it was in the catagory of Abstract....i would simply leave it to the Abstracting community to comment. Since it is still life, i would develope a composition so that one is left with a general idea as to what they are looking at without having to explain. Technical aspects look right....curves is nice as far as curves are concerned, lighting is great for the undefined content, blue background is perfect as far as blue backgrounds go. I respectfully have provided negative comments regarding this photo.

I've been a commercial advertising photographer for the past 20 years. I'd say that this photo is cleanly executed with a fairly strong graphic presentation and simple, if fairly common, diffused lighting. I'm sure the client was pleased with the result.

 

This type of look ie: gelled blue background and close, diffused lighting with transparent specular highlights, was very popular in the late eighties and early nineties and is still somewhat popular today. But I've seen dozens if not more similar shots in various source books such as the recently demised "Black Book" in the past, using this type of lighting (which I like, by the way) and strong saturated primary colors in the background.

 

That said, and given this particular genre of commercial "look", I'm left with the impression that this image could have been worked harder and longer and made more striking by taking the composition and lighting a step farther.

 

For example, the blue glow background seems a little too broad and flat for my taste. Even with the need for copy space I think the blue glow could be more progressive in tonal range. A brighter, tighter blue/white higlight near the clarinet fading to a much darker blue, almost black at the top of the image would be stronger and create more depth in the image.

 

A bit more of the clarinet would be helpful as well. I'd like to see more detail with a crop that extends farther to the bottom, showing more features and shapes of the instrument. I understand the desire to hide the identify of the clarinet but perhaps too much is hidden. Even the client might like an image which was just a little more obvious. Perhaps a fill card underneath the clarinet would also add some interesting specular reflections to the underside of the details of the instrument.

 

This is a pretty good shot and as I've said I imagine the client was pleased but I think a little more effort and time on the setup and lighting would produce a much tighter and more dramatic illustration.

 

Still, it's a good, competent job.

This is a great still life for what it was intended. It could be a poster, a magazine cover. IMO, I dont know how original it is though. the background fits very well, lighting is excellent.

I know clarinets and didn't recognize it at first. And I usually have little patience with abstract images. This image captured me without knowing what it was. The lighting is lovely, the image simple and still. I'm really impressed by the mood and the pond-like calm.

This is so well done. Thank goodness you titled it. The lighting used really created an architectural effect, for me. I was trying to decide at first if it was a sidewalk with sculptures of some sort.

How cool and creative.

ALthough I can appreciate the technical qualities of this picture, it doesn't move me at all. I have been looking at it several times and I still connot figure out what it is without the title.

 

I can rotate it anyway I wanted and still come out short.

 

But as it is, sometimes still life is a hard subject to appreciate, for me.

 

Congrats though.

Overall I like the composition. Especially for it's intended purpose. I think it is lacking just a bit for anything else. The lighting is excellent and the placement at the bottom of the frame works for me. Any of the primary colors would have worked for the background to evoke a different mood. I thought it was some type of instrument, either musical or otherwise, but not until I saw the caption could I positively I.D. it.

This is an elegant photograph of an elegant instrument. You don't need to see more of the instrument. If this was on an advertisement for a symphony or classical music then I would know what it was.

Perhaps people are simply not closely associated with this type of entertainment, in which case the photograph is not aimed at them in the first place.

Personally I think it is lovely.

I work in print production. That's a beautiful blue, but it will be

impossible to acheive in CMYK printing. The vibrant color will die.

A photograph taken for print use must take this into account.

There are a few vibrant colors available in the CMYK spectrum,

this isn't one of them.

Open it in photoshop and convert to CMYK mode to see what I

mean.

I like the ides for the shot. Very interesting. By the way, where is the trombone shot?